http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/rspca-outraged-over-lenient-sentence-for-cruel-puppy-farmer-20111210-1oos5.

html

RSPCA outraged over lenient sentence for cruel puppy farmer

Mark Russell The Age, December 11, 2011

QuickTime and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Inside Bert Cooke's puppy farm at Rosedale. Photo: Supplied by RSPCA A MAGISTRATE'S decision to not punish a puppy farm operator who kept dogs locked in a shed for years to breed is an outrage, says RSPCA Victoria. It was also at odds with the government's vow to crack down on dog farms, it said. Despite Bert Cooke pleading guilty to nine animal cruelty charges involving 49 dogs on his property at Rosedale, 185 kilometres east of Melbourne, magistrate Steven Raleigh did not convict him.

QuickTime and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Maggie with her new owner, Catherine Scullin. Photo: Ken Irwin The RSPCA has blasted the decision on its Facebook page: ''This is a bitterly disappointing result for the RSPCA. It is also extremely disappointing for all RSPCA staff and volunteers who put so much work into this case and the rehabilitation of these dogs. ''The result certainly does not meet the RSPCA's or the community's expectations, nor does it provide an acceptable outcome for the dogs that experienced such horrible welfare issues.'' When RSPCA officers entered Cooke's property in September last year, they found the 49 dogs suffering serious health problems due to their prolonged captivity . /Some were seized/ and needed significant veterinary care. (See Comments 1, 2 and 3) In Sale Magistrates Court on November 30, Mr Raleigh gave Cooke a two-year good behaviour bond without conviction, provided he allowed RSPCA inspectors to randomly visit his property. (See

Comments 4 and 5) The maximum penalty for each charge was 12 months' jail, a $14,000 fine and a 10-year ban on owning animals. Mr Raleigh also refused to order Cooke to pay the RSPCA's costs for any of the dogs seized and treated. (See Comment 6) One rescued dog, Maggie, an eight-year-old schnauzer, had never walked on a lead or played with toys and was fearful, having had minimal human contact during her years of neglect at the farm. (See Comment 7) She later almost died after giving birth to a litter of six. Maggie's surgery, removal of her cataracts and intensive rehabilitation since being rescued cost the RSPCA more than $10,000. (See Comment 8) ''When I saw her, I fell in love with her,'' said Maggie's new owner, Catherine Scullin.''She's a really kind soul and really smart and lovely.'' The RSPCA and other animal welfare groups want to know why Cooke was not given a tougher sentence at a time when the state government claims to be cracking down on puppy farms. RSPCA chief executive Maria Mercurio said: ''It is our hope that with the imminent new legislation announced by our government, and a thorough overhaul and tightening of codes of practice, that magistrates will take a firmer line.'' Oscar's Law president Debra Tranter, who visited Cooke's farm before the property was raided, said Cooke's sentence was inadequate and did not make sense. (See Comment 9) Cooke did not return calls from The Sunday Age. mrussell@theage.com.au Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/rspca-outraged-over-lenient-sentence-for-cruel-puppyfarmer-20111210-1oos5.html#ixzz1gGiG3qfj COMMENTS (by GLYNNE SUTCLIFFE) General: The RSPCA is hostile to anyone breeding companion animals. Therefore standards of care for animal breeders must be established independently of the RSPCA. Breeding is an entirely different activity to keeping one or two companion animal(s), and what is relevant in one situation (eg treating a puppy or a kitten as a surrogate human baby with full admission to pretty much all aspects of family membership and participation) is neither necessary nor desirable. For a start, the social needs of the breeder animal are only partly met by humans, and in greater measure by other animals it lives with. What is essential is enough warm human contact to retain the young animals pleasure in being with humans. Having said this, the other fairly obvious observation to make is that if a breeder does not care well for the parents and young population, he/she wont last long as a breeder. It is clearly in the best interests of anyone breeding young animals for sale, and especially young animal destined for companionship roles in human society, to look after them well, and make sure they are comfortable well, and happy. (NB old newspapers are a very good form of bedding cheap, clean, easily disposable and replaced, and with high insulation properties. I understand newspaper ink has certain antiseptic value as well) Throwing accusations around that each litter is not provided with individual silk cushions for each member thereof is not only ridiculous, but bears no relationship to the standards of care provided by the RSPCA itself (which as I understand the matter, tends to be somewhat worse than that provided by the original owners whom they have raided and stolen from)

Also interesting is to note that the case was heard and judgment given on 30 th November, but the report in The Age (one of Australias premier newspapers of record, on a par with New Yorks NYT in the USA, or Londons Times) was not published until December 11th that is to say (as is obvious from the tone of the report anyway) it is not the report of an independent journalist but a staffer who has been allocated the job of publishing under his name the media spin provided by the RSPCA. They took a few days to work out what to say about what happened in court!! Also, any mother with a litter needs to be isolated to some degree hence the open wire caging, which allows protection without the isolation of an enclosed and possibly claustrophobic solid wall. On another front, concerned citizens should note that Bert and his wife are not youngsters, and that this case is yet another instance of the RSPCA trying to get away with the property and assets of older Australians, in this case as in others, older Australians who are trying to remain economically independent of the welfare system. Vis-a-vis the sub-editors heading on this item, issue could be taken with the use of the terms outrage lenient, cruel and puppy farmer, all of which are emotionally loaded terms that will persuade, even after the court case, that Bert is some kind of monster and that the RSPCA are knights in shining armour whose valiant efforts on behalf of puppies have been horribly sabotaged by some mysterious means that bears no relation to the (RSPCA defined) truth. This is a travesty of social justice. The entire report does go to show that the major media companies are still in the RSPCAs pocket, irrespective of the court system. This means that even if the courts are brought to act in a manner better than their track record to date, there will still be a problem of reputation - which the RSPCA can still damage badly. For older people facing end-of-life issues, reputation is perhaps even more important than for younger people who have time to re-establish who they really are. RSPCA bastardry is at its most profound in this matter. And, as a postscript here, it is probably appropriate to identify new owners such as Catherine Scullin seen here with Maggie, as receivers of stolen property. That they get the animals they adopt (for a donation or sale price) relatively cheaply ought to clue them in to the fact that they are not paying the costs of the production of these animals. Particular 1. serious health problems is delightfully non-specific. It could mean anything or nothing. With the record the RSPCA has already established (of being willing to lie, cheat and steal without compunction), I am inclined to believe it means absolutely nothing. 2. some were seized any good reporter (please note, Mark Russell) would have asked Bert Cooke, or in some other way tried to work out, why some were seized and not others. The implication that the RSPCA only seized those animals which appeared to have serious health problems is almost certainly totally wrong. The RSPCAs track record is that it seizes the best and most saleable animals, then makes up a suitable justification. This is easier when there is no photographic or any other record of the animals at the point of time of seizure. I understand that Bert was able to photograph the animals seized on the second raid, (which would certainly have been his second rank animals) and that no health complaint or anything else was ever said about the second tranche, because his photographs would have constituted evidence to prove such claims to be outright lies). The total number seized at any one point in time will be found to be determined by the carrying capacity of the vans and enclosed-back utility vehicles that the RSPCA utilises for their heists. 3. significant veterinary care is also a pathetically vague slur. The RSPCA is adept in the art of smear. This is an example. 4. Good behaviour bond without conviction is a way of complying with the prosecution case without yielding more than a token response from the court system. It possibly serves to prevent Bert from running a civil case for compensation, while minimising the RSPCAs otherwise horrendous impact on his life, and on the linked life of his wife. 5. Allowing the RSPCA to randomly visit his property may sound reasonable, but it is a recipe for two years of unpredictable psychological trauma. Anyone who would like to understand this more fully has only to watch just half an episode of any Animal Rescue program, and listen to the way the RSPCA inspectors speak to people. They are re-incarnate Nazis and seemingly proud of it.

6. Not awarding the RSPCAs costs against the accused is the real evidence that the magistrate came to understand that the RSPCAs case was a crock, and shouldnt be allowed to create any further damage. The costs issue is crucial it is the way that the RSPCA uses the legal system to extract draconian penalties amounting to effective annihilation of their victims. It is a kind of reward for their hand-fed prosecuting lawyers- whose firms and principals, by the way, are often in personal longterm relationships with the RSPCA that ought to be investigated very closely. 7. More unprovable abuse 8. i) I suspect that Intensive rehabilitation means nothing more than that a volunteer was asked to cuddle her for half an hour a day. ii) If she did indeed have cataracts, then maybe the RSPCAs money would have been better spent offering the surgery, with or without a fee, without all the accompanying legal theatrics. iii) That Maggie nearly died giving birth could well be function of her being seized when pregnant, or it could be just another beat-up non-fact iv) however it does raise the issue of what happened to the puppies? The RSPCAs record here suggest that they simply assumed ownership of the puppies also, and sold them and pocketed the cash in a very business like fashion (apologies to real business people who have ethics that preclude stealing the stock that they sell). v) That her treatment cost $10,000 is purely notional, since the RSPCA has in-house vets on salaries. This figure will have been drawn from a generous estimate of what it would have cost, had they contracted out to a non-salaried vet. 9. I do not have time at this point to research Oscars Law, but a one-minute google search makes it clear that Bert would be grist for Deborah Tranters mill, so her judgment is hardly unbiased, and must be subjected to our own independent observations and reflections on the facts of the case as rebuilt from the ground up, hopefully keeping in mind the comments made above, and hopefully also with a better understanding of the RSPCAs modus operandi, as well as some sophistication in deciphering the PR spin pattern they have been deluding the public with for far too long.